Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2011

"Jed Kaplan is putting forward a new interpretation of the history of humans and their environment. This professor at EPFL and his colleague Kristen Krumhardt have developed a model that demonstrates the link between population increase and deforestation. The method enables a fairly precise estimate of human-origin carbon emissions before the advent of industrialization. The story of our influence on the climate began with the first farmers. [...] 'They have been having an influence [on the climate] for at least 8000 years.'
[...]
They show, for example, a first major boom in carbon emissions already 2000 years before our era, corresponding to the expansion of civilizations in China and around the mediterranean." (via Science Daily)

Looks like human civilization is linked to carbon emissions right from the beginning of agriculture. Deforestation was the first major impact before things really picked up with the discovery of fossil fuels. This was suspected for a while now, this recent study shows that the influence of traditional (eurasian) agriculture was anything but marginal though, despite the low populations at that time.

Browsing through last months TED talks I found a talk by Naomi Klein in which she describes how this culture is insane and the narratives it is based on contradict each other fundamentally. Much of my personal views are very close to what she says. This is a highly recommended video (downloadable in HQ on the TED website). In one of the slides she shows a motorola ad that literally say "slap mother nature in the face". There is little one can say as an answer to that. You could as well just stand on one leg with a fish on your head and turn in circles, that would make as much sense as anything you could say to that one...

This article describes nicely the inner workings and insanity of mass production of milk in Germany. Nothing new - this is just a reminder. A cow has to produce 50 liters of milk a day - this is so much, that regular food is just not enough for her. And as milk production is a priority for the cows body, this means that she would actually die if she would have to survive by eating grass on a pasture. Also it is interesting how the milk industry sees milk: "the beautiful thing about milk is that it can be disassembled and reassembled without any problems". bon appetit!

Samstag, 22. Januar 2011

Carol Bannerman from USDA Wildlife Services ridiculously claimed the bird kill was also to protect "human health."...
"We're doing it to address, in this case, agricultural damage as well as the potential for human health and safety issues," she said.

"Every winter, there's massive and purposeful kills of these blackbirds," says Greg Butcher, the bird conservation director at the National Audubon Society. "These guys are professionals, and they don't want to advertise their work. They like to work fast, efficiently, and out of sight." ... In addition to the USDA program, a so-called depredation order from the US Fish and Wildlife Service allows blackbirds, grackles, and starlings to be killed by anyone who says they pose health risks or cause economic damage. Though a permit is needed in some instances, the order is largely intended to cut through red tape for farmers, who often employ private contractors to kill the birds and do not need to report their bird culls to any authority. (via naturalnews)

This almost needs no further explanation. Insane! Just to clarify - the USDA poisons millions of birds (see their own bodycount chart) mostly due to economic reasons. And in addition to that, they allow everyone who believes that these birds - among them birds that where part in this whole "massive bird deaths" reports - will cost him money (or reduce his profits) in any way is allowed to kill them! And they don't even have to report this or put their bodycount in the chart above.

A new analysis of the Northern Hemisphere's "albedo feedback" over a 30-year period concludes that the region's loss of reflectivity due to snow and sea ice decline is more than double what state-of-the-art climate models estimate. - The study was published online this week in Nature Geoscience. (read more)

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company -- part owned by Shell -- has announced plans to build a major oil platform near crucial feeding habitat of the Western North Pacific gray whale population. (read more)

The bodies of virtually all U.S. pregnant women carry multiple chemicals, including some banned since the 1970s and others used in common products such as non-stick cookware, processed foods and personal care products, according to a new study from UCSF. Published in Environmental Health Perspectives. (read more)

[...]scientists have long suspected that far more severe and longer-lasting cold intervals have been caused by changes to the circulation of the warm Atlantic ocean currents themselves.[...]The new results suggest that the Atlantic ocean is capable of radical changes in how it circulates on timescales as short as a few decades. published in Science (read more)

The researchers also found that that engaging in horticultural activities can provide people opportunities to forget worries, transfer attention, or experience another way of life, or 'escape'. That the respondents rated the dimension of 'escaping' so high emphasizes the importance of the restorative benefits of contact with nature, observed the scientists. (read more)

Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Jan. 12, 2011 by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. [...] In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880. (read more)

Using detailed land analysis, Illinois researchers have found that biofuel crops cultivated on available land could produce up to half of the world's current fuel consumption. (read more)

The world's oceans are under siege. Conservation biologists regularly note the precipitous decline of key species, such as cod, bluefin tuna, swordfish and sharks. Lose enough of these top-line predators (among other species), and the fear is that the oceanic web of life may collapse. In a new paper in Geology, researchers at Brown University and the University of Washington used a group of marine creatures similar to today's nautilus to examine the collapse of marine ecosystems that coincided with two of the greatest mass extinctions in the Earth's history. [...] the implications could not be clearer today. [...] "In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction event in the history of the Earth, and the greatest since the dinosaurs disappeared, 65 million years ago," the 2006 report states. (read more)

[...]cities and countries, like animals, have metabolisms that must burn fuel to sustain themselves and grow.[...] To support the expected world population in 2050 in the current US lifestyle would require 16 times the current global energy use, for example. Noting that 85 percent of humankind's energy now comes from fossil fuels, the BioScience authors point out that efforts to develop alternative energy sources face economic problems of diminishing returns, and reject the view of many economists that technological innovation can circumvent resource shortages. (read more)

New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years (read more)

Insects produce much smaller quantities of greenhouse gases per kilogram of meat than cattle and pigs. [...] Insect meat could therefore form an alternative to more conventional types of meat. (read more)

Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle -- an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change, according to research published in the January issue of BioScience. (read more)

An international team of scientists has released data indicating that greenhouse gas uptake by continents is less than previously thought because of methane emissions from freshwater areas [like hydropower reservoirs] (read more)

The first in-depth national study of wild bees in the U.S. has uncovered major losses in the relative abundance of several bumble bee species and declines in their geographic range since record-keeping began in the late 1800s (read more)

Montag, 17. Januar 2011

"The US study predicted that if society continues burning fossil fuels at the current rate, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could rise from the current level of 390 parts per million (ppm) to 1,000 by the end of this century. The last time the world had such high levels of carbon dioxide temperatures were on average 29F(16C) above pre-industrial levels.[...] But unlike last time, when it happened over millions of years, temperatures will rise too fast for species to adapt and change.[...]He included 'feed back factors', such as melting sea ice, methane released from thawing permafrost and Amazon die-back." (via telegraph)

Finally someone not just took into account greenhouse gas emissions by humans, but also the natural feedbacks that result from this, which amplify these changes. And they looked at data from Earths history for this prediction. And what is the result? More doom and gloom, because the predictions of global warming according to that model given fossil fuel use stays steady start at 6°C warming and go up to 16°C. And that basically is the prediction for a stalled carbon emission - not a further increase. If there is an increase in emissions, as is currently the trend, it will get worse, if there is a decline (as suggested by the Climate Protocols), the feedbacks will still be there. Oh and if we hit 16°C we can maybe enjoy green skies, (if we manage not to choke to death)...

"[...] released a consultant's report Tuesday that links high concentrations of carbon dioxide in their soil to 6,000 tonnes of the gas injected underground every day by energy giant Cenovus (TSX:CVE) in an attempt to enhance oil recovery and fight climate change.[...]Paul Lafleur of Petro-Find Geochem found carbon dioxide concentrations in the soil last summer that averaged about 23,000 parts per million — several times those typically found in field soils. Concentrations peaked at 110,607 parts per million.Lafleur also used the mix of carbon isotopes he found in the gas to trace its source.'The ... source of the high concentrations of CO2 in the soils of the Kerr property is clearly the anthropogenic CO2 injected into the Weyburn reservoir,' he wrote." (via winnipeg free press)

Surprise! Pumping CO2 into the ground into revervoirs that were tapped by drilling in order to extract oil does not really stay down there. The symptoms sound awfully similar to those described for "fracking" as seen in the documentary movie "Gasland", just this time, the water does not burn, it has bubbles (and that includes of course local creeks and soil)! With the increase in the use of that idea, we can expect more of this. Oh and of course - it is not just dangerous for the people living above such a leak, the long term effect is obviously that CO2 will not stay underground, making the whole CO2 emission deal a long-term problem instead of solving it.UPDATE: And of course it should be noted, that the companies who put the CO2 underground earn money for pumping it down - they do not care about whether it comes up again unless they would loose money due to that.

"In the early 1990s the attention of economists was captured by empirical evidence suggesting that rising income levels in developing countries could be good rather than bad for the environment. This evidence drove a stake into the heart of those opposing growth on environmental grounds. [...] Ultimately, the view that income growth by itself eventually will be good for the environment also appears to be wrong because a causal relationship between income and environmental quality cannot be demonstrated" (via oxford journals)

A very often used argument for the importance of economic growth in terms of environmental issues is, that with wealth comes always the possibility and desire to protect the environment and thus increased growth and development is actually good for the environment. It seems, that data set is rather flimsy and a new study suggests, that there is no causal relationship between income and decreased levels of pollution. So there is no good reason for any country to claim that it has to grow economically and in terms of income stats before it can make environmental decisions! It seems that study does partly take into account externalized environmental impacts though, meaning that rich nations become "cleaner" because the "dirty" parts of production are pushed into poorer countries. This "ecological footprint" of all imported goods is hard to calculate and is often underestimated.
Overall it seems, economists cannot rely on development or growth or progress to create a less polluting society, but social and cultural change has to occur!

Samstag, 15. Januar 2011

"Species have been disappearing from ocean ecosystems and this trend has recently been accelerating,[...]Now we begin to see some of the consequences. For example, if the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are projected to collapse within my lifetime -- by 2048.” Worm is an assistant professor of marine conservation biology at Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Canada."At this point[...],29 percent of fish and seafood species have collapsed -- that is their catch has declined by 90 percent. It is a very clear trend, and it is accelerating. We don't have to use models to understand this trend.”
It has been estimated that 90 percent of large predatory fish have already been extracted from our oceans[...] and we currently throw away 40 percent of what we do catch as “unwanted.” What an amazing and horrifying paradox. (via seashepherd.org)

The statement that "90% of the large fish are gone" has made its appearance everywhere, but the truth is even darker, it seems - almost a third of everything humans eat from the sea has been reduced by that number and more depletion is to come. And what do people do in such a situation? Use the fish more wisely, eat fish that comes from stable fisheries that are not overfished? No, they dump half of the fish they catch back into the ocean - dead! What are the thinking. "There are so many fish, we can never catch them to depletion"? Yeah right - and there will always be oil and the atmosphere is too big to be affected by humans. What an odd combination of overestimating and at the same underestimating the role humans play.

Donnerstag, 6. Januar 2011

The technology, developed and tested at the No.404 Factory of China National Nuclear Corp in the Gobi desert in remote Gansu province, enables the re-use of irradiated fuel and is able to boost the usage rate of uranium materials at nuclear plants by 60 folds.
[...]But independent scientists argued that commercial application of nuclear fuel reprocessing has always been hindered by cost, technology, proliferation risk and safety challenges....

Yeah - Factory Number 404, right! (For those who did not get the joke: "404" is the error you get in your web browser when a website does not exist)

Dienstag, 4. Januar 2011

Just months after the biggest oil disaster in American history and the promise of the US government to enforce stronger regulations to protect the environment, 13 companies are now starting to drill again in the treacherous deep sea. Without additinal requirements on safety. How does that come together with the statement that new drilling will require such enhanced measures and more care? Very simple - these companies started these projects before the new regulations have come in effect, so they are excempt from them for these projects: "The government said it was not breaking its promise to require environmental reviews because the 13 companies - which include Chevron USA Inc. and Shell Offshore Inc. - had already started drilling the wells without detailed environmental studies.". Ah well - the GOM is dead already, so why bother with environmental protection, not?

Montag, 3. Januar 2011

The title of this blog contains the term "insanity". One may wonder what kind of insanity I am talking about. Obviously many things we see around us look insane even to the ones living within the structures that perpetuate these things. Think of cities without people in China or bridge over nonexistent rivers. The more one steps back and away from the guts of the globalized culture, the more insane activities one finds. Building a city on a fault line or in the midst of a desert may be such a thing. Deliberately poison our food with pesticides and herbicides sounds rather insane if one looks at it that way, doesn't it? Now what exactly is that mental disease and how does it work? In the computer age, we have come to accept that a physical biological virus/bacterium is not the only way a disease can spread. Computer viruses, email-worms, memes and "viral marketing" are prime examples of such nonphysical diseases. It should come to no surprise then, that the same can apply to cultural memes, spreading with that culture or even becoming part of that culture itself like a virus that puts its genes in the hosts body cells forever. The indigenous people called the Cree have a term for the disease (and many others have different words) that has spread around the globe in the past hundreds of years. It is called the "Wetiko disease" (the "cannibal disease") - a term describing a mental sickness, a psychosis leading to a person literally eating other lives. It was known as such forever but that now has spread like an epidemic.

A poetical/philosophical analysis of that idea was written by Paul Levy - I recommend reading it (you should however see much of the writing as a metaphor rather than physical representations, so probably there are not really physically aliens or vampires or psychic vibrations or evil spirits around, but these concepts are symbols in this article to create a sense of what is described - if you prefer, replace them in your mind with other terms from psychology but do not try to take them literally).

I found many of the analogies and metaphors I used in various postings or comments and debates represented in that article and was surprised at the convergence of these imagry.
What is interesting: Even our own culture has a myth about this disease that has over the ages been transported into the metaphorical realm of fairy tales, but is prevalent especially in our times - the myth of the life-force consuming vampire. And I find it telling that in the past years not only has the number of "Vampire movies" increased, the emotional content of it has changed as well. From horror movies in the early and mid 20th century to almost a glorification and at least humanization of vampires in the beginning 21st century. What once was pure life-sucking evil now has become associated with powerful heroes. Does this culture finally embrace its insanity instead of fighting it? Is the "artificial blood" in vampire movies a valid analogy to the likewise dissatisfying and almost feeble attempts to create "sustainable development of resources" and such?